It's been a long time since I last got a google news alert for "Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline." So long, in fact, I'd forgotten I even had those search terms set to notify. But, just in time for Halloween, the PATH zombie reared its ugly head and I got a notice last week that some right-wing think tank had published a paper where those terms were mentioned, America’s Electricity Grid: Outdated or Underrated?

And what did the author have to say about PATH, more than three years after its death? How has history treated this stunningly costly failure of "independent" planning?

Despite identification of areas in which transmission capacity is limited, a “not in my backyard” (or anyone else’s, in some cases) attitude toward new transmission line siting has resulted in cancellation or delay of some new transmission lines.For example, in 2011, PJM cancelled the proposed Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project, a 275-mile transmission line that would have run through West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland to deliver electricity into Northern Virginia. Although the line was designed to improve reliability in eastern PJM, changing forecasts of electricity demand growth and intense opposition to siting the line led to the project’s cancellation.

It's the opposition that will be remembered, not individual analyses and the fine line that supposedly determined this white elephant was needed.Hey, remember this? PATH's talking heads insisted that opposition had nothing to do with PATH's cancellation.But, history says it did.While the article's conclusions are pretty screwed up, it does a nice job explaining the bulk power system and federal regulation thereof. It's a good "backgrounder" for folks new to the transmission world. Think about how much more reliable our system would be though, if we brought back the "islands" of the past and operated them as smaller parts of the bigger system (aka "microgrids").

Beginning in the late 1920s, electric utilities began to integrate their operations to improve reliability and reduce costs. Previously, utilities had operated as “islands,” meeting the demand for electricity solely from their own generating plants. To ensure reliable service, this meant building extra generating capacity to keep in reserve, in case unexpected problems caused their plants to shut down.[2] By integrating their operations, utilities could provide more reliable service without building as much backup generating capacity. In essence, if a generating plant at Utility A suffered a forced outage, one of Utility B’s generators would be available to ensure the lights stayed on. The concept is similar to diversifying a financial portfolio. Instead of investing everything into just one company’s stock, buying multiple stocks, bonds, and other investments reduces the risk of a sudden financial loss.

Microgrids that can be islanded from the larger system at times when the larger system fails (remember Superstorm Sandy?) can continue to provide power for necessary services. And if microgrid "A" suffers a forced outage, it can borrow from microgrid "B", or "C," or "D," or any other nearby microgrid. Relying on just a handful of generators and long-distance transmission lines creates parasitic load pockets with no native generation. Those folks have nowhere to turn in case of emergency.Building more transmission lines isn't the answer. The answer is a more democratic electric grid system that benefits consumers and local communities, not gigantic, investor-owned utility holding companies.

"In essence, if a generating plant at Utility A suffered a forced outage, one of Utility B’s generators would be available to ensure the lights stayed on."

is bad, and this:

"if microgrid "A" suffers a forced outage, it can borrow from microgrid "B", or "C," or "D," or any other nearby microgrid."

is good.

Please tell me what the difference is?

Extra Credit question: Why is it bad to reduce costs by not having to build redundant generating capacity inside each microgrid?

Thanks.

Reply

Keryn

11/4/2014 01:37:09 am

It's pretty much the same thing, isn't it? But many micro grids that can operate independently provide increased local reliability. Economies of scale provided by distant mega-generators can't be relied on, as Mother Nature has demonstrated time and again. Those redundant local generators also provide a huge economic boost to the locality that doesn't happen with centralized generation.

But those "redundant local generators" cost more to have and to occassionally operate than they contribute to the local economy. In electric generation economies of scale is real. Seems to me that a recurring theme in your suggestions is for more expensive stuff. Just sayin'.

I'm voting for a Flux-Capacitor in every home... the ultimate in distributed generation (unfortunately, not realistic).

Just think of all the savings to be had if we cut out all the fat salaries of investor-owned utility executives. Do you have any references to studies where these numbers were crunched. I'd like to read them (at some point in the near future when I have a minute to catch my breath).

Reply

Captain Trips

11/4/2014 08:58:10 pm

Don't you think that if someone could make a better, cheaper product and sell it that someone would already be doing it?

I'm sorry, my flux capacitor comment was wrong. The flux capacitor was the device that transported the DeLorean through time after it reached 88 miles per hour (Back to the Future). The power source for the DeLorean was a "Mr. Fusion" nuclear power generator that used trash as fuel.

Reply

Keryn

11/5/2014 07:57:21 am

Actually, no. If someone could make a better, cheaper way to generate and transmit electricity, the IOUs and their Frankenstein, EEI, would either:
1) Have that "someone" killed.
2) Pay that "someone" handsomely for the rights to the product and then deep six it.
"Someone" would be interfering with the IOU profits.

Reply

Patience

11/7/2014 09:31:51 pm

Well, Tripster, I side with Keryn on this one, particularly w/r/t her last point. There have been numerous examples through history of companies trying to destroy alternatives that would affect their business model.

Here in West Virginia, for instance, just look at the "War on Coal" - the coal industry and utilities know very well that coal is a declining fuel source for myriad reasons, including, most importantly, that it can't compete very well with natural gas.

But the coal industry is determined to milk every last possible cent out of our state, so it blocks everything from water pollution standards to reasonable policies for development of renewables.

Also, you argue that centralized generation is less expensive. I would say that's not so - I'm not sure these days that "economies of scale" apply equally. For instance, localized generation that relies on a diverse collection of energy sources, including - or especially - renewables, doesn't have the fuel costs once the initial investment is made. Local generation is likely to be far more conscious of externalized costs because it affects that local community. And what's the cost of a region-wide blackout, such as the 2005 incident that knocked out power in the Midwest, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, vs. localized blackouts that can be sealed off and kept from spreading? (Not to mention, though I will mention it, being able to get smaller communities back up and running far faster than happens with those huge, widespread blackouts!)

Reply

Patience

11/7/2014 09:34:08 pm

BTW, don't bother with any sci-fi references in talking with Keryn. She's not a fan.

I, OTOH, got it immediately!

Reply

Keryn

11/7/2014 11:30:48 pm

Who needs sci-fi when real life is just so wacky?

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About the Author

Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

AboutStopPATH Blog

StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project. The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view. If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty. People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself. If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.